JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—This reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been made by the bench consisting of Honble Mr. (Dr.) Justice B.S. Chauhan & Honble Mr. Justice Rakesh Sharma by order dated 30th July, 2007 passed in Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 25866 of 2007 (Lata Panchal alias Latifa and another v. S.S.P. Ghaziabad and others) which is Annexure-1 to this order. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the alleged contempt need not be narrated in detail since they can be gathered from Annexure-1. A very brief enumeration necessary for the resultant order would be appropriate. 3. In the writ (No. 25866 of 2003) filed by the contemnor and his wife Lata Panchal, they did not disclose, that an earlier writ petition (No. 6145 of 2007) was filed by them about the same matter on which order had been passed on 19.3.2007 by Hon’ble Mr Justice V.K. Chaturvedi and which had been dismissed with the observation that since the lady wanted to go with her parents and not with the contemnor who alleged to be her husband, the lady being a major should be allowed to go and live wherever she likes. 4. In this writ petition No. 26866 of 2007 in which the contemnor and his wife wanted the parents of the lady to be restrained from interfering in the married life of the lady, the charge, against the contemnor alone, is that the contemnor did not mention the fact, that his earlier writ petition had been dismissed, in the above noted manner. 5. That is what led aforenoted Bench to issue notice for contempt on the following ground : (i) In the instant case, as the petitioner No. 2 has not disclosed the material facts knowingly and purposely only for the purpose of committing fraud with the Court.” 6. We have heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, Counsel for the contemnor and Sri A.N. Bajpayee for the State. 7. It has been argued by Counsel for the contemnor that non-mention of the earlier writ petition in the subsequent writ petition cannot be said to be suppression and concealment of facts. This argument is wholly unacceptable because the matter related to relations between the contemnor and his wife. 8. 7. It has been argued by Counsel for the contemnor that non-mention of the earlier writ petition in the subsequent writ petition cannot be said to be suppression and concealment of facts. This argument is wholly unacceptable because the matter related to relations between the contemnor and his wife. 8. In the subsequent writ petition husband and wife wanted the parents of the lady, not to interfere in their life, while in the earlier writ petition they had alleged, that the wife was not being allowed to come, by her parents. 9. The matter virtually being the same, the subsequent writ should have disclosed the same, so that, the picture of the whole events which had transpired earlier, could be before the Court. So that there was clear and deliberate suppression of the facts. 10. The other contention is that the contemnor is an illiterate person, and he does not know, what is to be mentioned and what is not to be mentioned in a writ petition, and it was essential for his Counsel to have known, that non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition was necessary. 11. Inherently the argument cannot be said to be without substance, but for practical purposes, it is not possible to disintegrate and distinguish between the Counsel and the client so far the averments in the writ petition are concerned. The litigant is supposed to know and verify the facts enumerated in the petition and he cannot be allowed to escape liability and responsibility on the plea of illiteracy, and cannot transfer the burden on the shoulders of his lawyer. 12. We must, however, note that it has been mentioned by the Bench in Annexure-1 that the lawyer (Sri R.N. Rai) in the subsequent petition was the same, who had filed the earlier writ petition. Their Lordships did not proceed further and did not refer to any responsibility of the Counsel in that regard. It would therefore, not be appropriate for this Court, to dilate further, on the issue. Counsel for the contemnor has referred to the case of Advocate General State of Bihar v. M/s M.P. Khair Industries and others, AIR 1980 SC 946 . 13. It would therefore, not be appropriate for this Court, to dilate further, on the issue. Counsel for the contemnor has referred to the case of Advocate General State of Bihar v. M/s M.P. Khair Industries and others, AIR 1980 SC 946 . 13. The question whether in the facts of a particular case a matter amounts to suppression of facts or not is a question to be determined on the facts of that particular case, and is not a matter, to be decided by reference to a case law. Any reference to case law in this regard, is unwarranted and unnecessary. 14. Reference may be made to a recent case of Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Geet S. Vist and another, 2007 (4) Supreme 362 decided on 18.5.2007 where it was observed that “it is well settled that a mere direction of the Supreme Court, without laying a principle of law, is, not a precedent. It is only where the Supreme Court lays down the principle of law, that it will amount to a precedent”. 15. The aforesaid case law referred to above by Sri Zaidi does not lay down any principle in this regard, because in a matter like this, no principle of application for all kind of cases can be laid down. 16. Each case will have to determine upon its own facts, and it would have to be inferred from those facts, whether there has been material suppression of facts or not? The tendency of filing case law where there is no scope for filing them, needs be discounted and discouraged. 17. We therefore, hold the contemnor guilty for the contempt of the Court, under Section 12, of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 18. In determining sentence to be imposed on the contemnor, it cannot be ignored, that, he is an illiterate person, and such a person signs or thumb marks on a petition without understanding what the lawyer has written. Though technically a litigant becomes responsible after having thumb marked or signed the petition, the realistic aspect is that, he is unaware of the contentions raised in the petition. This aspect, should not be lost sight of, in determining the quantum of sentence. 19. Though technically a litigant becomes responsible after having thumb marked or signed the petition, the realistic aspect is that, he is unaware of the contentions raised in the petition. This aspect, should not be lost sight of, in determining the quantum of sentence. 19. We have also to content, with the circumstance, that the lawyer who filed the subsequent petition was the same, who had filed the earlier writ petition, and he must have been aware of this aspect, and no proceedings have been drawn against him. In the circumstances it would subserve the interest of justice if the apology of the contemnor is accepted and the contemnor’s apology is accordingly accepted. 20. The contempt case is disposed of accordingly. ————